


Loony Language Loves Lazy Writers

by Littlebluejay_hidingpeanuts



Category: Original Work
Genre: Gen
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2020-01-26
Updated: 2020-01-26
Packaged: 2021-02-25 00:21:31
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 1
Words: 566
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/22423129
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/Littlebluejay_hidingpeanuts/pseuds/Littlebluejay_hidingpeanuts
Summary: Brief essay on political language in 2007.





	Loony Language Loves Lazy Writers

Language is a curious entity. Language moves, flows, lives, breaths, and grows. It is the child of intellectual civilizations. Cultivated to be the clearest and most precise way of communicating, society has become lazy and unfit to be the caretaker of such a beautiful and flexible thing. One example of language that should be easy, simple, and clear, but has been turned into a convoluted mess is an article by William Safire called “Language: Tattoo regret and apostrophe remorse.” Another example of bad English is President George W. Bush’s speech on September 20, 2001. One example is a casual article that anyone might read and the other is a political speech about the past disaster of 9/11. They are both hard to red and even more difficult to explain. George Cromwell’s views on language are still very true today.

The first article by William Safire is ironically about how language is being used. It talks of the possessive, grammatical use of the apostrophe as well as tattoo regret. The only problem is the article’s use of long and strange words and phrases. Etymology, epidermis, collocation, and equivocate are all used and could all be replaced with a simpler word or description. The words used do not seem to be the words that the given audience of the article would know. The article also uses worn out phrases like “kicking oneself,” “sinking sensation,” and “as the political winds blow hot and cold.” Apparently even the use of a possessive apostrophe “s” is supposed to give the user “that added frisson of self-congratulation.” The article uses pretentious diction and overused phrases. 

The speech by President Bush has many problems, which may be to do the wish to stir the hearer or reader. A speech is meant to captivate the audience, stirring emotions within people, and leaning them to your cause. Bush’s speech continually uses meaningless words. In every other sentence, he either uses freedom or terrorism. He describes terrorism as those who follow the path of fascism and totalitarianism, two very meaningless words. He calls terrorists extremists and radicals. The use of the word terrorism was not used until after WWII. He might try to remember that Americans were the radicals when they fought for their independence. He also uses the typical phrases that all presidents use: “My fellow citizens,” “state of the Union,” and “normal course of events.” Bush has even made up some new meaningless words: terrorism, security, stability, and freedom. Yet he talks about “aiding and abetting,” and taking “new measures.” How can these “new measures” be made to give the people freedom and security? One cannot have both at the same time for one cancels out the other. He describes the terrorists “tactics of terror” as they “plot evil and destruction,” yet it sounds like he is describing Wile E. Coyote. The speech uses meaningless words, old phrases, and makes up some new ones.

Both articles use meaningless words, overused phrases, and pretentious vocabulary. They even make some new ones. Bush’s speech was so full of commas and references to itself that it could hardly be read with complete understanding. Much of what Cromwell wrote about was well thought out and clear. While reading the articles, his points on the political language decomposition were observed as correct. Language really has declined. His ideas were true in his time. They are still true today. 


End file.
